Death of an Employee

THE LABOUR MINISTRY is now investigating the death of a 26-year-old employee of Ernst & Young after a letter that went viral by the deceased’s mother to the management blamed working conditions for it. The content of the letter does not reveal much far removed from what many officegoers face on a regular basis. Stress and long working hours are assumed to be part of what comes along with a good job. It is hard for a chartered accountant (CA) to get into Ernst & Young and once they get there, they are expected to fit the mould of what it demands. In return, they get pay and perks above industry average, and also the social cred that comes along with a leading organisation which trans­lates into other areas, like better matches for marriages, etc. It is a trade-off that one should be making with eyes wide open and those who do so adapt to the circumstance. Typically, the higher you go, the more you are expected to endure whatever demands working conditions make—coal miners and factory workers have unions, while investment bankers do not for that very reason.

The company has claimed that it is not workload that led to the death. It has some rationale to it; otherwise, there would be a lot more employees dying in their 20s in their midst. If stress were the reason for the death, what exactly would they be expected to do? How does any­one decide what is the level of stress that an employee can handle? Should there be laws that mandate no private com­pany can make employees work beyond regular working hours? That would have an impact on competitiveness and growth, and stretch that thought experi­ment far enough, it would eventually lead to the company’s own survival come under question leading to all employees losing their jobs. Places where employees are over-protected already exist and they are called govern­ment jobs. It is no secret what the fallout of that has been in terms of efficiency.

Whatever be the balance between work culture and welfare of employ­ees, having the state institute laws is the least optimal solution. It will just lead to second-order effects, like long maternity leaves leading to companies obeying it in principle, but not hiring women who have recently married to pre-empt adhering to it. Or the govern­ment itself, at some point, in many of its organisations bypassing labour laws by hiring people on contract so that these protections would not apply.

Decisions in life are just a series of trade-offs. Tesla, the electric vehicle company, for instance, is said to have a crushing work culture in terms of stress and deliverables, but many young men and women aspire to join it because of what it does to their learning curve and career. The trade-off also applies to companies. When they create horrible working conditions, then talent would gravitate towards competitors making reform imperative for survival. The government’s role should be limited to creating minimum conditions that prevent unreasonable exploitation; for everything else, a fair marketplace is as best a solution as can be found.

About The Author

Madhavankutty Pillai

Madhavankutty Pillai has no specialisations whatsoever. He is among the last of the generalists. And also Open chief of bureau, Mumbai  

•